In Camera Proceedings Can Be Allowed Under Section 151 CPC In Appropriate Cases: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that in-camera proceedings can be allowed to be held in appropriate cases under section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that merely because there is no express provision in CPC regarding in-camera proceedings does not mean that such proceedings cannot be allowed by court.“Proceedings in-camera mean the...
The Delhi High Court has observed that in-camera proceedings can be allowed to be held in appropriate cases under section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that merely because there is no express provision in CPC regarding in-camera proceedings does not mean that such proceedings cannot be allowed by court.
“Proceedings in-camera mean the proceedings behind the doors and not in an open court. It is a private proceeding in the absence of general public and media and meant to be conducted in sensitive cases to protect the privacy and dignity of the parties,” the court said.
It also observed that the grounds for invocation of in-camera proceedings are linked to the reputation of parties and are likely to be conducted in cases where the circumstances are of such a character that, if allowed to be examined in public view, it might irreparably injure party’s reputation in the eyes and perception of general public.
“It is incumbent upon the judiciary to not only see that justice is done but also to ensure that justice is also seen to be done. Depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, this Court must do substantive justice. In any case, procedures are handmaids to the ends of justice and they can only supplement but not supplant the interests of justice,” the court said.
The court made the observations while ordering in-camera proceedings be held in the suit filed by film producer Taru Puri seeking injunction and damages against a woman.
Puri alleged that the woman was using abusive language against her and her family members and had even called upon her followers to “rape her and her daughters.” The defendant allegedly used social media platforms, Instagram and YouTube, to hurl abuses against her, through live sessions and recorded videos.
Observing that there is a prima facie case in favour of Puri, the court passed an ad interim injunction in her favour and restrained the defendant forthwith from using any social media platform for making any comments or remarks against Puri or her family members.
The court also directed Puri to provide URLs of objectionable content made by the woman to Instagram and YouTube for taking appropriate action. It also directed the social media platforms to take the content “that incites any crime to be committed against Puri or her family members.”
While allowing Puri’s application under section 151 of CPC seeking in-camera proceedings in the matter to the extent of examination of the videos, the court said:
“In the instant case, where the plaintiff has continuously been receiving vile abuses and threats from the defendant no. 1 not only to her person, but also to her family members including rape threats to her daughter, it is pertinent that this Court invokes its inherent powers in the interests of justice and to protect the dignity and reputation of women. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the prayers made in the instant petition merits to be allowed.”
The matter has now been listed before the Joint Registrar on February 24 for completion of service and pleadings and listed the case before itself on July 18.
Advocates Payal Balal, Gaurav Singh and Rajan Rai appeared for plaintiff. Advocates Tejas Karia, Varun Pathak, Shyamal Anand, Yash Karunakaran and Adya Joshi appeared for defendants.
Title: TARU PURI v. ANMOL SHEIKH ALIAS MALAIKA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 137